Supreme Court refuses to hear two religious cases, what do you think?

Question

In one, a Catholic owned business is required by state law to cover birth control under their employee insurance.

In the other, a church was barred from using the public library for worship services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02scotus.html?ref=us

Answer 1

a) if you serve the public and have employees, you can't inpose your theology onto them just because "you're the boss."

b) separation of Church and state. A fine American tradition.

Answer 2

I applaud the Court's decision to leave these cases as they are. They are Constitutionally correct without granting review.

A Catholic owned business cannot assume that their employees are all Catholics. If they are seriously opposed to birth control to that extent, they will have to use nuns in those positions.

The public library is no more an appropriate place for worship services than a public school is. Granting one religion the privilege of using the facilities for worship (not just speech, but religious practices) would be favoritism. There is also no reason for it. If the group does not have a place of worship of their own, they can rent a private facility such as a hotel conference room or a room at a non-profit organization's facility. If they cannot afford that, they can meet in one another's living rooms.

Answer 3

1. [Business is required by state law to cover birth control under their employee insurance.]

If it's State Law - Then it's law... This is where allot of Americans need to be aware of what is going on with there local, state & federal governments. Being involved and knowing what bills are coming up in there local government to be voted on before becoming law could have prevented this from happening by organizing enough people to possibility vote against it. Churches and there congregations – with all local community people should get involved and know these things long before hand.

2. [Church was barred from using the public library for worship services.]

The “key word here” [PUBLIC].. Not all persons who use’s a library are incline to a certain religious belief. They go to there own churches or places of worship that they believe or belong to. And a public place is not where such holdings should be carried out.

On a personal note:

I believe that all should be involved in government – weather it’s on a local, state or federal level. Knowledge is valuable – .

Old Dawg 03-Oct-07

Answer 4

Well, since the Supremem Court doesn't want to decide on these, I will:

1. The Catholic business owner has every right to decide whether or not to use birth control. They do not have the right to decide for their employess. Birth control is a very personal part of womens' reproductive healthcare and it's none of their business. They do not get to pick and choose what parts of their employees healthcare to cover. That's between the doctor and the patient.

2. The library is a public building and as such the people have every right to go there and discuss whatever they want as long as it is not disruptive to other patrons. If there is a charge for using the room this church wished to use, then they must pay it. If they are unwilling to pay to use the facilities, then they have no right to use them. Otherwise, barring them from using the facilities based upon their intent to use them for worship is an infraction on freedom of religion.

So sez I. And so be it. Dammit.

Answer 5

I just laughed and got stuck on the claim of religious freedom. Funny how they will stand behind that when it suits them.

I still think it's ridiculous that because of a religion they think they can say what others are able to do. Oh there is that freedom of religion thing again.

As for the public library. I guess I can see that it could cause some trouble. Not everyone can have a live and let live attitude. I'm personally against any religion having it's services in a public library. If they don't have a church then go to someones house or maybe have it outside in a park where they can enjoy the beauty of nature too.

Answer 6

The law is the law. A practicing Christian should know to follow the law of the land. I will say on the library issue, worship is one thing, study is another. If the group wanted to study there, the content of study should not be an issue, any more than if a group of Pagans wished to have a study there. I am a Christian that does believe in birth control.

Answer 7

I read them, and according to the letter of the law, they would both be a shameful waste of time. A public library is not a place of worship, and is paid for with our tax money. If they want to worship, that's fine, but they should rent or buy private property. Trying to use public space is a shameful attempt to cross the line dividing church and state.

As for the birth control issue, I see that as a shameful attempt to try to force someone else to live by their religious beliefs. If you don't want them to have birth control, don't offer health insurance that includes it in a state that requires it. Despite your religious beliefs (which are arbitrary, not mandatory) State law governs all those that abide or pass through the state.

The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." and that means that while it is okay for those Catholics to decide not to take birthcontrol themselves, they have to abide by the state law that says that it is mandatory for it to be covered by their employees health insurance. Having a trial would be another waste of time, and a shameful attempt for the religious to garner support to further erode the division of church and state.

Answer 8

The Supreme Court - being politically motivated at times - is avoiding these issues as fiercely as it can until it can not do so any longer.

By MY opinion (such as it is) - the government should not be involved in issues of religion or private ownership etc. As such ...

in the first case - if the business is privately owned and does not recieve government subsidy, then they should be able to set their own policies. As such, if their health care provider is not prodiving the service they wish, then as free Americans, they should be able to switch, or decline the issuance of health care. The employees - also being free Americans can choose to work there or not based upon their OWN convictions.

In the second case, the library is a public, and therefore government-subsidized entity and should either allow NO religious groups sevices to be performed there, or ALL religions (any who ask).

Answer 9

ok. To a lot of human beings (the non-geeky criminal community), the magnitude of the case replaced into this. Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) refused to go into the armed forces. He had reliable non secular ideals that warfare and violence replaced into incorrect, and that to serve could be an affront to his non secular convictions. His application (community point) replaced into widely used. The charm board reversed, and found that he had to serve. He replaced into then banned from boxing, on an identical time as his charm replaced into pending. The splendid courtroom reversed, and Clay replaced into exonerated. The case stands for the proposition that particular voters would desire to stand up for their ideals, and that on an identical time because it could injury you, that's the the terrific option ingredient to do. That conscientous objector status is a impressive of all voters, despite if that's somewhat believed ... yet, regrettably, that's no longer what the splendid courtroom held. The splendid courtroom reversed on a procedural/technical foundation. there have been 3 achievable grounds to refuse concientous objector status. The charm board recited the three standards, and found that Clay had failed on his burden under those standards. consequently, held the charm board, Clay's objector status should not be sustained, and his refusal to be inducted replaced right into a violation of regulation. The splendid courtroom observed that, before that courtroom, the U. S. government known that 2 of the achievable motives to reject objector status have been for sure no longer supported by using the record. the government argued that there replaced into info to help rejection of the 0.33 foundation for rejection of objector status. in spite of the undeniable fact that, the splendid courtroom observed that as a results of fact the Appeals Board did no longer articulate which customary it replaced into per, and because 2 out of the three standards weren't ideal, the ruling of the Appeals Board would desire to be reversed. Had the Appeals Board basically pronounced that they have been based on the 0.33 foundation, that's achievable, even in all probability, that the case could have been desperate in any different case. The do away with -- in case you're ruling on an administrative subject, locate the inspiration on your decision. in any different case, your decision is an abuse of discretion. reliable success

Answer 10

Well, the second one is crazy, the public library is a place to study and read not for worshipping.
Churches are for worshippers and library for study, reading, etc. I go to the library almost everyday, I don't want to hear people worshipping. I need to concentrate in a peaceful and quiet area. I just rejected an apartment because it was on top of a church. you should see how loud those people are at night. They get together 4 times in a week.Poor of my children. One of my children has to wake up at 5 am to get to her high school which is far away.

Answer 11

they don't want to rule on these cases because they do not want to set a legal precedence. if they did allow the cases to be heard, they would have to refuse the appeals if they were to in fact rule according to legal precedent and the constitution. but since at least 2 of the sitting justices are in favor of religious services in public places and allowing clinics employees to refuse medical care due to religious reasons, they will not hear an appeal case that they sympathize with yet cannot rule in favor of.